So, someone is faking a fake device and now many folks are going to waste over $2,000 each to attempt to replicate and you think that is OK but you have a problem with my post?

To me, that is derogatory, and so is your post if you just sit by and watch this happen.

Perhaps you don't have the background to know any better?  Fine, that is understandable.  But, I do know better.

This is fake and does not/can not work.

It is as simple as that.  If you do not like my saying that, I suggest that you do not read my posts.

Good day,

Bill

Hi ,

How you now that circuit is a fake ?
 Did you prove that circuit or other variant circuit ? Did you test any of this ?
I did all the tests i need about a year ago , and with very good results.The biggest problem is when people do not think through your own head.
I did not follow to the letter the patent information to make my tests because have some "distorted information" .
Even thought the Leal Barbosa and would offer spoon-fed all the necessary information for granted?
You must read and understand the patent, moreover the patent is made of other ideas taken from other patents.
One of the main ideas was removed from Stan Meyers patent.
Investigate and you see that is true.
That's why I've always said from the beginning that this circuit could not call Barbosa & Leal circuit.
Because it is made using registered ideas on other patents.
Checks at the end of Barbosa & Leal patent the references used in other inventors.
but of course is only about my background fault when i sit and read ; yes because is very important read too .
At that time, the same criticisms and doubts have been raised by the people.
But it's normal whens people are unaware, have more cautious, about the things that are not "Conventional"
I understand, but what i see is a non constructive opinions that make people leave this forum  like Clearance did.
I think people who attend such forums do not need nanny, as some of them sticks are formed in areas covering this area of research.
What I abhor is the antagonistic way is made critical by some people.
What you have shown so far to show that the circuit is fake?
As you think it's fake, you should try and explain why you think that, if in fact these concerned about people and their money.
Not only say that is fake without nothing.
Do not be upset, sees this as constructive criticism.
Of course, I will continue to read your posts

Thanks and good day

@tinman, thank you for pointing that out I thought it was just me, now the circuit might work as intended.

Regards
Keith

You got the wrong schematic MH. The little few turn coil dosnt loop back onto it self. One end go's to the ground rod's,and the other to the neutral side of the load.
When you look at the schematic below,you will see why i said the ground rods are nothing but a resistive path in the neutral side of the circuit. And this is why when Clarence puts in more ground rod's,he gets more power to the load. So now he thinks he is making more power with more ground rod's because more power gets to the load--when in actual fact,he is only reducing the resistance in the neutral side of the circuit when he adds more ground rod's.

Brad:

Thanks for the correction but it doesn't make any difference.  Having the earth ground wire loop a few turns around the secondary high-current captor loop is really nothing more than electronics quackery that doesn't mean anything.  It's just like other parts of the circuit are electronics quackery.  To tell the truth I was aware that there were three or four variations on the CAD-based schematic and I wasn't willing to spend 10 or 15 minutes trying to figure out which one was a perfect match.

Your comments about the number of grounding rods is not necessarily true.  It's just as easily arguable that the number of rods in the setup is never really an issue and it is not a "choke point" for the current flow at all.  You can make a reasonable assumption that it's possible that no matter the number of rods, the conductivity through the ground remains very high.  For example, if the soil resistance between the two sets of grounding rods varies let's say between 0.4 ohms and 0.8 ohms depending on the number of rods, then it's not going to really make any difference at all.  I am making an assumption about the resistance because it never occurred to Clarence to make that measurement, plus he wouldn't know how to make the measurement anyway.  As far as Clarence saying that he got more power to the load, I take that all with a huge grain of salt.  It's possible that it's a "good story" for the narrative and leave it at that.  Even if he did observe more power to the load, it could have been because of another factor, which most likely Clarence would not have been able to distinguish.

There are several caveats here.  Firstly, I don't know what the typical resistance would be between sets of grounding rods.  I am making an assumption that the rods are at least one meter in length, and the lower parts of the rods make it down to very moist or even water-logged soil.  Under those conditions I am making an assumption of less than one ohm, and for all I know it might even be less than 1/10th of an ohm.  I really don't know.  It's a pretty strange measurement to make, so it might be very hard to find that information, I didn't try.  Secondly, I have no idea what kind of soil there is where Clarence is, how wet the soil is, how long his rods are, when did it last rain, and so on and so forth.  I read that they said those variables were discussed among the EF members, but not Clarence himself.  However, we can't forget that two sets of grounding rods in soil are at the EXACT SAME GROUND POTENTIAL, and that means they are as dead as a doornail with respect to "extracting power from the ground."

MileHigh

Most of what Clarence has to say as quoted above is quackery.  Consider, "It gets rid of the VOLTAGE COMPONENT in the SECONDARY windings and leaves ONLY the AMPERAGE COMPONENT!" your smoking gun.

I will discuss the issue of the geomagnetic map without looking up a single damn thing.  No matter what your location is respect to the geomagnetic map, the Earth's magnetic field is going to be about the same.  It will be in a magnetic north direction with a certain inclination that is primarily determined by you latitude.  Irregardless of all of this, the Earth's magnetic field is static and unchanging and will not affect the setup in the least bit.  It's just more quackery from Clarence.

So what is the map?  My guess is that it's a map of the permeability of the underlying bedrock and exposed rocks on the surface.  Different types of rock, igneous, sedimentary, etc, may have small differences in permeability.  That will ever so slightly affect the direction of the magnetic field and deflect it a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a degree.  The strength of the magnetic field may change by a tiny tiny fraction.  The map is probably a tool used by geologists to identify the mineral and rock formations that form the layout of the land.  It may help locate valuable mineral deposits.

So for the average Joe Blow experimenter, their compass needle will not in the least be affected by where they are relative to the geomagnetic map.  One more time, worrying about the geomagnetic map is all completely nonsensical.  Has anybody seen any kind of discussion on how to "react accordingly" depending on the geomagnetic map to "match your area" as Clarence says?  It's a farce.

I may be wrong about what a geomagnetic map actually represents, I am not Googling it.  Even if I am wrong, it's still irrelevant, it's quackery, and it's a farce.

MileHigh

Off topic comment:

Anybody like me that may suspect the number of guests on EF just for "creative marketing" purposes?

Five hundred and ninety-two guests on a Tuesday morning/afternoon in North America?

EnergeticForum is locked ? Cannot view it

@MH: that image of the post from Clarence is hilarious. Reminds me a lot of UFOPolitics. How many thousands of dollars has his EF thread caused to be thrown away? Piles of blown NTE mosfets (costing twice or three times what the generic IRF equivalents cost), motors, parts of motors, wire, epoxy, time and effort...  Remember, in December of 2012, on page 95 he announced "Overunity Galore".... and now, in April of 2015, the thread is up to page 250.... and he's still buying his home's electricity from the local grid. Meanwhile people come and people go, but you can load up just about any random page from the past two years and read almost the same things. People build and test, find no OU and in fact very inefficient performance, UFO tells them they aren't doing it right.... over and over and over again, but you don't see any proper measurements or demonstrations of real OU from UFOpolitics, and the ones who do actual measurements fall away since they realize they'll never replicate what he _claims_ to have achieved but cannot actually demonstrate.
250 pages, running nearly three years now... Clarence is just a beginner compared to that, but give him time....